Oaktree Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We assessed all the quality statements in the effective key question. People received care that was based on their needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and we saw them supporting people in ways which reflected their assessed needs. Information was recorded in care plans which were personalised and up to date. People’s needs were monitored using recognised tools and regular reviews. People and their relatives confirmed the care and treatment they received was based on their individual needs. Some people told us they would like changes to aspects of their care. We told managers about this, and needs were promptly reviewed, and changes made. People’s capacity was assessed and any limits on them were for safety reasons and only restricted people when necessary. Staff gave people time and respected their preferences and choices. Staff promoted health and wellbeing by providing healthy meal choices and encouraging people with activity and exercise. Activities were varied and were available on a group and individual basis. Visiting professionals told us staff worked in partnership with them and had the best interests of people at heart. Changes to people’s needs were promptly identified and action taken when necessary. Staff could make referrals quickly to health professionals who knew people well. This helped ensure people’s needs were clear and provided continuity of care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received care that was based on their needs and preferences. Several people we spoke with were unsure if they were involved in reviewing care plans, but most relatives told us they had spoken with staff to ensure people’s information remained accurate and up to date.

Staff knew people well and we saw them supporting individuals in ways which reflected their assessed needs. For example, when people needed assistance with eating, staff sat with them and offered the support they needed at an appropriate pace. Staff told us care records were helpful, and they were able to access these easily. Records included information about people’s physical, emotional, communication and mobility needs. Changes were clearly recorded, and this helped staff to deliver care and support which met people’s individual needs and preferences.

Assessments were carried out before people moved to Oaktree Care Home. This involved the person, their family where relevant, and any health or social care professionals. This ensured their needs were understood and could be met by the service. We checked current records and saw regular reviews of care needs had been held with people’s relatives. Nationally recognised tools were used by staff to assess specific risks. For example, people's level of pain, risk of developing pressure ulcers and nutrition screening. When people were assessed as being at risk, staff had measures in place to manage or reduce the risks. For example, by using pressure relieving mattresses or providing modified diets. Care plans also included information on how people communicated and what support they needed. For example, whether the person had hearing aids or if they wore glasses. This ensured people’s communication needs were assessed and helped staff to provide more personalised and effective care.

Some people felt their needs were not fully met. For example, some people told us they did not always receive showers when/as they preferred. One person did not have the equipment they needed or required in their bathroom. We established this had been removed because of a misunderstanding and was rectified immediately. The registered manager promptly reviewed people’s personal care preferences and updated records to ensure guidance was clear. People gave us positive feedback about the quality of meals and choices they had. One person commented, “‘Food is good, my egg on toast is excellent. Top marks.” Another person told us, “I only have soup and custard out of choice, and [a prescribed supplement]. I eat in my room and that’s my choice.” Some people recently asked for more fruit to be provided, and this had been actioned.

Staff told us they were encouraged to try out new ideas to best meet people’s needs and improve the service. We saw staff supporting people to eat and drink in line with their assessed needs. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met in line with current guidance. People who needed modified diets received these and others had assistance or encouragement to eat and drink where required.

The provider had up to date policies which were based on current legislation and best practice guidance. Recognised assessment tools were used to assess and monitor people’s needs. These reflected current best practice. When people were at risk, risk assessments were completed and included guidance for staff. Details of people’s daily intake of food and drink was recorded, and any changes or concerns were monitored and regularly reviewed.

People told us their health needs were met and they could access health professionals when necessary. However, one person told us, “There is no physio here. They did it in the other place. That’s the only thing I wish I could have.” A relative was happy that their family member could see the visiting GP if there were any concerns or changes.

Staff spoke positively about teamwork and how they effectively communicated with each other to best meet the needs of people. Daily handovers ensured staff were aware of people’s changing needs and helped them plan each day to ensure they delivered care as effectively as possible. During the handover, staff were allocated specific people to support each day. A member of staff said, “We work in twos to enable us to support a small group of people throughout the day.” Staff told us they worked effectively with other professionals. A nurse told us 2 GP surgeries worked with the home. One GP visited every Thursday for Bluebell unit and a GP from a different surgery visited Buttercup unit every Friday. Records were kept regarding all health care appointments.

Visiting professionals told us the provider worked in partnership with them and followed their recommendations.

Staff could make referrals promptly to health professionals and specialists. Information was shared appropriately to clearly communicate people’s needs and ensure continuity of care. Changes to people’s needs were discussed in handovers and team meetings. Team meetings enabled staff to meet regularly, share good practice and keep up to date with any changes in the home.

People were encouraged to make health and wellbeing decisions where possible. For example, they were routinely asked about pain relief, how they were feeling and what they wanted to do that day. This helped them have more control over their health and wellbeing. One relative told us they wanted their relative to be cared for at the home instead of hospital. They told hospital staff, “If he goes back to Oaktree, he knows everyone there and he will get a lot better. Because of the care he has there, they all know him. After a few days back at the home, he was fine.”

Staff promoted health and wellbeing by providing healthy meal choices and encouraging people with activity and exercise. Staff told us regular activities took place and this helped keep people healthy and improved their quality of life. During our visit, a large inflatable ballon was being used to engage a small group of people. During the summer, staff had supported people to follow football tournaments and participate in Olympic themed activities. Staff knew people well and worked in partnership with health professionals such as the GP and dementia wellbeing service. Regular GP visits helped identify risks to people’s health and wellbeing early and supported staff to follow guidance to prevent further deterioration.

Activities were clearly displayed on notice boards throughout the home. Activities included gentle exercises, singing, entertainers, and visits with animals. The gardening group had won an award within the organisation and the vegetables grown in the garden were often used in the kitchen.

People had experienced positive health and wellbeing outcomes. One relative told us, “[Name] has come back to her old self – brighter, bright-eyed, more positive about life. It’s nice to see her not worried, relaxed and happy.”

A nurse described how each person’s care was reviewed. They told us they identified a ‘resident of the day’ to focus on. This meant that every person living in the home had a particular day when the whole staff team would focus on their care. The nurse said this was an opportunity to make the person feel special as well as reviewing records and needs. Staff members from housekeeping, activities, catering and maintenance joined the care team in reviewing the person’s care. This approach involved the person and helped ensure their expectations were being met.

People’s care and treatment outcomes were monitored using relevant tools and regular reviews. This meant needs were identified and changes and improvements made promptly to continuously improve individual outcomes.

People and their relatives told us consent was sought before care was provided. We saw staff doing this and respecting people’s dignity and rights when delivering care. People’s views and wishes were met as far as possible. A relative confirmed they had recently been involved in deciding whether their family member should have a flu vaccination.

Managers told us people’s mental capacity was assessed and reviewed and records confirmed this. Staff received training about the Mental Capacity Act, and we saw them putting the principles into practice. For example, when one person was asked if they would like to join the afternoon activities, staff took time to make sure the person understood the information and waited for them to say what they wanted to do. When people declined to join in an activity, this was respected. Staff understood their responsibility to consult carers, families and/or advocates as necessary to ensure people’s rights were protected and care was delivered in their best interests.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. There were processes for staff assess people’s capacity to make decisions and to ensure decisions were in the individual’s best interests. Outcomes were documented in care records. If needed, appropriate legal authorizations to restrict people for their own safety were in place. In care homes these are called Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). When people were subject to restrictions to keep them safe, these were closely monitored to ensure they were necessary.